Kesler v. Brown

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kesler v. Brown

637 So. 2d 958, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 5285, 1994 WL 236230

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 1, 1994

DocketNo. 94-01031

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 637 So. 2d 958 (Kesler v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kesler v. Brown, 637 So. 2d 958, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 5285, 1994 WL 236230 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner, an attorney, seeks certiorari review of the circuit court’s order denying him the right to depose the respondent, his former client, in this action for legal malpractice and fraud. The court denied discovery because the respondent had been previously deposed in the bar grievance proceeding he had brought against the petitioner. In this case, we hold that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law, leaving the petitioner without a remedy on appeal.

We recognize that certiorari review of orders denying discovery is rarely appropriate. See State Farm Mutual Ins. Co. v. Peters, 611 So.2d 597 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Esman v. Board of Regents of Florida, 425 So.2d 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Nevertheless, the deposition taken by the Florida Bar’s attorney prior to the filing of this lawsuit deprives the petitioner of any opportunity to depose his former client with respect to the issues in this action. That the attorney’s questioned conduct in the grievance proceeding is part of the subject'matter of this action does not change our decision.

Petition granted.

HALL, A.C.J., and THREADGILL and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner, an attorney, seeks certiorari review of the circuit court’s order denying him the right to depose the respondent, his former client, in this action for legal malpractice and fraud. The court denied discovery because the respondent had been previously deposed in the bar grievance proceeding he had brought against the petitioner. In this case, we hold that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law, leaving the petitioner without a remedy on appeal.

We recognize that certiorari review of orders denying discovery is rarely appropriate. See State Farm Mutual Ins. Co. v. Peters, 611 So.2d 597 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Esman v. Board of Regents of Florida, 425 So.2d 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Nevertheless, the deposition taken by the Florida Bar’s attorney prior to the filing of this lawsuit deprives the petitioner of any opportunity to depose his former client with respect to the issues in this action. That the attorney’s questioned conduct in the grievance proceeding is part of the subject'matter of this action does not change our decision.

Petition granted.

HALL, A.C.J., and THREADGILL and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

637 So. 2d 958, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 5285, 1994 WL 236230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kesler-v-brown-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack